Tim Russert/MSNBC Democratic "debate" features journalistic incompetence

The Democrats are offering yet another debate this evening, broadcast on MSNBC and featuring Tim Russert as moderator. He and a "reporter" from a Northeast TV network just asked the candidates whether they supported sanctuary cities. Then, Russert and the "reporter" just listened as the candidates blathered on. All of them supported sanctuary cities, with (of course) Kucinich and Gravel being the most extreme and the latter being the most incoherent.

The only thing Russert did was press them to answer the question; he didn't call them on any of the ensuing misleading statements nor did he point out the downsides of their support. He is simply a hack and isn't willing to call the candidates on their BS.

Please go to campaign appearances and ask the candidates tough questions - the type that hacks like Russert won't ask - and then upload the responses to Youtube. Everything will change if people start doing that: the candidates will realize they have to start dealing with issues, and the MSM will be damaged by being revealed for the hacks they are.

UPDATE: A purported transcript is here. This part does not comport with my recollection of events:
[Allison King of New England Cable News]: So, Senator Biden, yes or no, would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law [via sanctuary laws for illegal aliens]?

My recollection is that he would allow sanctuary cities, but I'll wait for excerpts to verify that. Also, King was introduced as having "has been sift[ed] through thousands of questions from across the country". That's one heck of a sifter she's got there, since the question on sanctuary cities was the only one on immigration, and there were no doubt several more worthy questions, including the ones I submitted via their online form.

In his "answer", Biden also said:
Pick up the New York Times today. There is a city not far across the river from my state that imposed similar sanctions... And what they found out is, as a consequence of that, their city went in the dumps -- in the dumpsters. Stores started closing, everything started to happen and they changed the policy.
So, either a U.S. Senator bought the NYT's propaganda, or was trying to retail it.

Then, Chris Dodd says:
The Immigration Service came in an raided basically homes in [New Haven, Connecticut], causing a great deal of disruption, disrupting the relationship that was being developed with community leaders...
One would hope that a U.S. Senator wouldn't support a potentially corrupt mayor and "community leaders" that are collaborating with a foreign government, but he's a Democrat so what do you expect. Then, after endorsing Bill Richardson's stock "reform" speech, he says:
If it means temporarily engaging in a sanctuary protection here, then so be it if that protects our country.
Sanctuary policies would allow illegal aliens who are terrorists to remain here to plot and carry out attacks; see the remarks from September 11 Commission member John Lehman.

Then, after Kucinich reads what's on the Statue of Liberty and after Hillary and Obama try to evade the question but both end up answering in the affirmative after issuing standard talking points, we come to Mr. Incoherent, aka former Senator Mike Gravel:
What's going on? Again, we're in fantasy land. We're talking about a problem -- we're scapegoating the Latinos of our society because we as a society are failing in education, we're failing in health care, we're failing in our crumbling infrastructure, and we're failing by invading countries and spending our treasure.
These answers are indicative of journalistic incompetence of the worst degree. All of those candidates should have been torn to shreds if Russert and King weren't simply paid hacks.

UPDATE 2: Video of most of the sanctuary cities question is here. While Biden does say "No" just like is in the transcript, Russert did ask all of the to speak up if they thought the federal government should do something against the cities with those policies. All of them stood there with their hands down until Kucinich started in with his blather. So, Biden got confused somewhere along the line.


Scapegoating the Latinos? That would imply that someone else is to blame for MS-13 and the Mexican Mafia and the 18th Street Gang, that someone else is to blame for my nice quiet beautiful SoCal town turning into a Tijuna-like sh*thole, that someone else is crowding our country's schools with ESL students who get taxpayer funded lunches and whose families collect WIC and get their healthcare for free at the emergency room. We all know some Americans are also to blame for these problems. American politician traitors, the American media who lobbies incessantly for open borders, and American businesses who care only about cheap labor and love to pass the enormous external costs on to the taxpayers. Of course the leftist-globalist open border coalition will only blame the "nativist" "xenophobe" "redneck" "bigots" that object to this invasion, and who are footing the bill for it. It's perfectly OK to scapegoat them for their "hate". As if we're not supposed to hate the injustice of this invasion. They can take their hypocritical accusations and jam em. The day of reckoning is coming.

I really couldn't agree more. The debate was terrible because of how awful Tim Russert was [1]. Check out my full analysis here [2].

[1] www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/09/dartmouth-debate-can-edwards-become-un.html
[2] www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/09/dartmouth-debate-can-edwards-become-un.html

Sheesh. Another Democrat obsessed with how to finagle "free" healthcare, even while the country goes to hell because of the invasion. Stop the invasion. Then maybe we can do something about healthcare.

Well said, Tanstaafl. And time to take these debates to a more realistic level. Let Tom Tancredo be the moderator and ask the questions at the next democratic "debate". And to be fair, Bill Richardson can do the same at the next Republican debate. Sure would help pin down the issues and the positions of the candidates on both sides.

I thought it was better than usual because the two moderators more strongly than usual at least tried to pin down a yes or no answer. Doesn't sound like much and often isn't but it can be illustrative if the question is an apparent softball but the candidates still can't seem to give the obvious answer. For example: RUSSERT: But you would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law? CLINTON: Well, I don't think there is any choice. For an open borders advocate, I thought that question was easy enough to answer 'no' or 'of course not, but...' and then say 'which is why why we need CIR' or something like that. But, amazingly, only Biden actually said no. Think about that. The rule of law is the very basis of our political system and people running for President couldn't even stand up for that fundamental principle? Incredible, and Hillary's answer to this single question shows she is unfit to be President. The answers given were telling of just how afraid the Democrats are to offend their open border constituents. I hear Hillary Clinton is already running a general election campaign. Oh really? Somehow I don't think her anti-rule of law answer will go over well with swing voters. She already singled out Lou Dobbs, you know, that guy whose viewers are mostly Independents and populist Democrats? Who needs their votes, right? Was anything less than an enthusiastic endorsement of sanctuary policies really going to turn off a lot of party activists and primary voters? Perhaps, but actually endorsing and making excuses for disobeying law surely turned off a lot of people derisively referred to as the 'law and order crowd. As if being for the rule of law and against anarchy is something to be ashamed of. If I were a Republican strategist, I would file that little clip of Hillary referred to above.

the gangs are just part of the plan of evil being done here and now.